>>11953692Oh my gosh...my mind is a blank atm.
However...I have wanted to begin a plane [database] myself, so your have piqued my interest to think deeply on this.
>>11953709>See the problem with all this Chan Research is that eventually all this Autism is lost in the RainTHIS I have an idea about.
It really only gets lost because the archive does not allow the tagged posts to pop up as they do in unarchived threads.
Once that ability gets lost, the tedium endured to follow a conversation gets lost.
>I was in an ended thread today. Some guy says something to another. I open that. That One is answering another, however, the point of the interesting replies has yet to be discovered.Let's just say that NOT being able to continue opening that ridiculous, but significant, quantum series of replies is the DIRECT CAUSE OF AUTISM being lost once a thread hits the archives.
~~~~~
>If Research is done well and there exists an open standardI agree with this as well, but, fresh info is always desireable.
1. As for a repository, well, how many threads wind up w/ more than one topic?
Skyking has all different kinds of planes, sometimes described by anons. However, even in a thread entitled Peanut Butter (haha) someone might mention a plane...and before you know it a few anons begin discussing intricate details on particular planes, one or two pilots, maybe someone who's built them...
...and, if the thread was simply catergoried as Food>Peanut Butter, the very interesting info about the amazing birds would get lost.
>to be more serious, though...as I first pointed out, the archive here is faulty. I can think of a few changes I would make here.Whatever you're thinking of doing with archived threads, not having the ability to instant-pop the tag or reply is the hugest problem.
I do keyword searches on/pol/ all the time, but the search function is not optimal...leaving access to important info lost for it.
>Don't mind my scatter 
